Israel and Hamas wrestle with the dilemmas of their confrontation

Commentary: international pressure and the determination of Hamas to
carry on firing rockets will decide how long Israel's offensive lasts. But
Benjamin Netanyahu's objective is more limited than it might seem.

Palestinian firefighters try to extinguish fire at UN storehouse after an Israeli military strikePhoto: AFP

A grey barrier laced with barbed wire divides Israel from the Gaza Strip, tearing across a pleasant Mediterranean landscape of green fields. On both sides of this line, the toll of suffering was rising inexorably on Saturday as Operation Protective Edge entered its fifth day.

By nightfall, Israel had launched about 1,200 air strikes against targets across Gaza, killing at least 121 Palestinians, while Hamas had fired over 500 rockets at Israeli cities, wounding 10 people.

Once, Israeli towns lying within a 25-mile radius of Gaza were most at risk; on Saturday, Hamas was launching its longest-range weapons and sirens were sounding as far away as Haifa, almost 100 miles to the north.

That leaves two questions: how much longer is the bloodshed likely to last – and what are Israel’s objectives?

When it comes to timing, Operation Protective Edge is still young by the standards of previous offensives. Sunday will be day six of the air strikes, whereas Operation Pillar of Defence lasted for eight days in 2012 and Operation Cast Lead went on for 22 days in 2008-09. Moshe Yaalon, the defence minister, duly warned that “long days” of fighting still lie ahead.

Several factors will determine the length of this ordeal. The first is the flow of Hamas rockets: until and unless this diminishes, Israel will be viscerally unwilling to scale down its offensive.

Before this operation began, Hamas was believed to possess a stockpile of up to 10,000 projectiles of various kinds. If about 500 have been fired so far, that still leaves plenty more, although we can be sure that Israel’s air strikes will have destroyed many of these weapons. Hamas leaders will have to calculate how much punishment they are prepared to suffer before the pain becomes too great.

Assuming that Hamas keeps up the barrage, Israel’s decision-makers will also have to weigh the international pressure for a ceasefire. So far, the diplomatic spotlight has been trained well away from them. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, waited until day three of the operation before making a bland call for “de-escalation”, while stressing that “no country can accept rocket fire aimed at civilians and we support completely Israel's right to defend itself against these vicious attacks”.

On Friday, President Barack Obama spoke of mediating a “ceasefire” during a telephone conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. But there is no sign of Mr Kerry or any other US envoy heading to the Middle East. So far, America has not wavered from its traditional willingness to provide diplomatic cover for Israel.

Smoke rises after a cargo crossing between Israel and Gaza was shelled (AP)

But experience suggests that international patience has limits and, at some point, even America's forbearance will crack. The blunt truth is that a large number of civilians usually have to die first. The destruction of a home for the handicapped by an Israeli missile on Saturday morning is the kind of incident that will begin to focus international attention. On its own, however, this tragedy is unlikely to prove a turning-point.

Nevertheless, Israeli decision-makers know the clock is ticking. Their military planners assume that all operations will eventually be curtailed by outside pressure, so they try to ensure that a large number of targets are destroyed as quickly as possible. Hence the intensity of an air campaign and naval bombardment that has seen 1,200 strikes in only five days.

The fact that Israel generally fights in a goldfish bowl of international scrutiny will also complicate the next decision that its leaders must take. In the coming days, they will consider whether to escalate the offensive by sending troops into Gaza.

For all his rhetorical belligerence, Mr Netanyahu is a cautious leader. He will be deeply reluctant to incur the risks of a ground operation. If he orders an invasion of Gaza, the casualties on both sides would inevitably mount and one terrible incident might jeopardise even America’s goodwill.

The chances are that Israeli soldiers will only strike inside Gaza if there is no other way of achieving Mr Netanyahu’s objective. And that aim is more limited than it might appear. The prime minister has defined his goal as: “To restore quiet to the cities of Israel” – no more and no less. So Mr Netanyahu is not trying to destroy Hamas or force the movement’s unconditional surrender, nor topple it from power in Gaza. After all, if Hamas were to fall, even more extreme forces might take over.

Instead, Mr Netanyahu’s position is that if the rockets stop flying, so will Israel’s jets and drones. Put simply, he will trade “quiet for quiet”. That leaves Hamas with the most agonising dilemma of all. How much more of its painstakingly amassed arsenal can it afford to fire at its old enemy – and how much retribution is it willing to take?